[1.12.x] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

[BigJammy]

4 minutes ago, WuphonsReach said:

The crates will only empty down to 50%.  That gives you a few options.

• Pack twice the crates, but only fill them to 50%
• Eject the crates shortly before landing so that they are not connected to the 'Duna' Logistics
• Turn off warehousing on the crates, EVA and detach them from the lander (decouplers or KIS/KAS), then enable warehousing once they are detached (I think you can do that)

(My personal approach is to not put kerbals on automated miners at all.  Unless I need X resources by a particular date, putting down an uncrewed mining rig wins out over trying to keep a Kerbal happy.)

Options 2 and 3 are not possible because of the Scavenger function. You need control to enable/disable the warehouse module, that means putting a probe on the crates, but the Logistic Center will scavenge them and push the resources away. Option 1 would surely work, but I'm a sucker for efficiency, and that's also why I'm trying to keep an engineer with the drills even if it's kinda useless 

[dboi88]

16 minutes ago, jd284 said:

The obvious fix would be to also pull MaterialKits from planetary storage when inflating things. I've added a request to DStaal's ticket about this topic.

Yep this is ultimately the way to go in my opinion.

 

20 minutes ago, Gilph said:

ATM, I have to Hyperedit the resources back once I get into orbit.

If it's resource dissapearing into Kerbin PL you can sort that by turning off warehouses in the VAB and turn them back on in orbit. Otherwise your cheating on your launches by only launching with half of the weight  

[allakwea]

Hi.
I had a strange situation. Playing in a career mode (normal difficulty +) with Karbonite (and a lot of other mods, + situation repeats when I uninstall all other mods, if this is necessary).

I researched the first Karbonite tanks/engines and I can fill this tanks with fuel in the VAB.

as I understand - I can not to fill them in VAB. or fill tanks are available by design? 

[WuphonsReach]

31 minutes ago, BigJammy said:

Options 2 and 3 are not possible because of the Scavenger function. You need control to enable/disable the warehouse module, that means putting a probe on the crates, but the Logistic Center will scavenge them and push the resources away. Option 1 would surely work, but I'm a sucker for efficiency, and that's also why I'm trying to keep an engineer with the drills even if it's kinda useless 

I'm pretty sure you do not need a probe on the crates in order to use the MKits inside for inflation.  And I'm pretty sure that ejecting the crates prior to landing will work.  But now I'll have to test it...

[dboi88]

25 minutes ago, allakwea said:

Hi.
I had a strange situation. Playing in a career mode (normal difficulty +) with Karbonite (and a lot of other mods, + situation repeats when I uninstall all other mods, if this is necessary).

I researched the first Karbonite tanks/engines and I can fill this tanks with fuel in the VAB.

as I understand - I can not to fill them in VAB. or fill tanks are available by design? 

Apologies can you please clarify what you mean and what your questions is. You say 'and I can fill this tanks with fuel in the VAB' but then you suggest the problem is that you can't fill them in VAB?

[DStaal]

1 hour ago, WuphonsReach said:

The crates will only empty down to 50%.  That gives you a few options.

• Pack twice the crates, but only fill them to 50%
• Eject the crates shortly before landing so that they are not connected to the 'Duna' Logistics
• Turn off warehousing on the crates, EVA and detach them from the lander (decouplers or KIS/KAS), then enable warehousing once they are detached (I think you can do that)

(My personal approach is to not put kerbals on automated miners at all.  Unless I need X resources by a particular date, putting down an uncrewed mining rig wins out over trying to keep a Kerbal happy.)

Another useful tool in these situations is the Ranger ILM: It's got a warehouse, can hold MaterialKits, doesn't take MaterialKits to inflate, and *it's storage grows when it inflates.*  This means you can 'pull back' some of the MaterialKits from PL by deploying an ILM.

@BigJammy, I'm interested in one aspect of your design there: Are the Karibou crates better than the smallest size of Kontainers?  I hadn't checked closely, but I believe two Karibou crates should be exactly the same size as one small rectangular Kontainer.

1 hour ago, jd284 said:

The obvious fix would be to also pull MaterialKits from planetary storage when inflating things. I've added a request to DStaal's ticket about this topic.

Yep, that would be a good fix.    Though I'm not sure my ticket is the right place: There may be technical issues that prevent one that don't apply to the other.

33 minutes ago, allakwea said:

Hi.
I had a strange situation. Playing in a career mode (normal difficulty +) with Karbonite (and a lot of other mods, + situation repeats when I uninstall all other mods, if this is necessary).

I researched the first Karbonite tanks/engines and I can fill this tanks with fuel in the VAB.

as I understand - I can not to fill them in VAB. or fill tanks are available by design? 

Filling them is available by design.  Karborundum tanks originally could not be filled in the VAB, but for various reasons that's been changed.  Karbonite has always been fillable.

[allakwea]

1 minute ago, dboi88 said:

Apologies can you please clarify what you mean and what your questions is. You say 'and I can fill this tanks with fuel in the VAB' but then you suggest the problem is that you can't fill them in VAB?

I assumed that I not be able to fill Karbonite tanks in VAB  when I play career mode. now no need to extract Karbonite with drill.

3 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Filling them is available by design.  Karborundum tanks originally could not be filled in the VAB, but for various reasons that's been changed.  Karbonite has always been fillable.

Thank you. This is what interested me.

p.s. I apologize, English is not my native language.

[DStaal]

1 hour ago, dboi88 said:

If it's resource dissapearing into Kerbin PL you can sort that by turning off warehouses in the VAB and turn them back on in orbit. Otherwise your cheating on your launches by only launching with half of the weight  

Which leads to yet another option, if the design allows it: Inflating before you land.  PL doesn't work in orbit, so if you launch and then on the way to your destination turn on warehouses and inflate, you'll still have all the MaterialKits available.  Of course, you need a design where this won't cause you further issues...

2 minutes ago, allakwea said:

I assumed that I not be able to fill Karbonite tanks in VAB  when I play career mode. now no need to extract Karbonite with drill.

Oh, there's still plenty of reason: Shipping empty tanks and filling with Karbonite on-location for your return home is still far more fuel efficient than shipping the Karbonite (or other fuel) all the way there just for the return trip.

[BigJammy]

12 minutes ago, DStaal said:

@BigJammy, I'm interested in one aspect of your design there: Are the Karibou crates better than the smallest size of Kontainers?  I hadn't checked closely, but I believe two Karibou crates should be exactly the same size as one small rectangular Kontainer.

@DStaal Karibou Crates hold 2500 units while the smallest Kontainer holds 2000, and two crates are just a little bit bigger than one Kontainer while holding a lot more, which made them the preferable choice in my design. 4 Kontainers would have taken a lot of space.

[DStaal]

And an idea on the whole Kolony rewards thing: How much difference would it make if rewards came in in a more 'staged' fashion?  At the moment, you start accumulating rewards from day one, basically.  (For that matter, if your first ship contains USI parts, you start accumulating rewards the moment you enter orbit.)  Would delaying the start of rewards help any of the balance issues people are perceiving?

What I'm thinking is having something so that rewards don't start actually accruing until Kolonization is at 150% or so - your initial set-up and settling in time doesn't gain you anything.

[allakwea]

37 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Oh, there's still plenty of reason: Shipping empty tanks and filling with Karbonite on-location for your return home is still far more fuel efficient than shipping the Karbonite (or other fuel) all the way there just for the return trip.

Question came from the fact that the first Karbonite engines look a little unbalanced(in my opinion, especially if I can use them immediately.).

"stock engines" - 5lvl tech ~650kH and ~ 3000 with Karbonite. of course if not consider other options.

Edited January 31, 2017 by allakwea
add tech lvl

[DStaal]

40 minutes ago, allakwea said:

Question came from the fact that the first Karbonite engines look a little unbalanced(in my opinion, especially if I can use them immediately.).

"stock engines" - 5lvl tech ~650kH and ~ 3000 with Karbonite. of course if not consider other options.

Karbonite engines are typically higher thrust and lower fuel efficiency than stock, with a fairly heavy fuel.  Typically you'll get better dv with LFO than Karbonite.  They've always seemed fairly balanced to me, but I haven't looked to closely at them.

But I don't think they've been touched in a while, so if you have suggestions on balancing them it might be worth taking a look.

[allakwea]

38 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Karbonite engines are typically higher thrust and lower fuel efficiency than stock, with a fairly heavy fuel.  Typically you'll get better dv with LFO than Karbonite.  They've always seemed fairly balanced to me, but I haven't looked to closely at them.

But I don't think they've been touched in a while, so if you have suggestions on balancing them it might be worth taking a look.

Unfortunately I did not consider their params in aggregate - this is my mistake. I saw the possibility of using them without further action(although the old forums came across that this is not possible) - and it surprised me.

I'm just going to keep in mind that all is not as it seemed at first glance.Thanks for the clarification.

About balance,  no idea, I do not even know so well KSP mechanics to have the audacity to advise.

 

[Gilph]

Hi, looking at using the 3.75 Tundra Kerbitat.  The thing is almost 10 tons, does only one out of four possible functions, and is not the best choice in any of the functions by far.

Would it be a good idea to change the config so that it does two things? Choose between hab common/hab quarters AND recycle/purifier? It would make it relevant for both orbital station and landed base usage. Even with the current stats for each mode it would still not always be the best choice, but it would be a decent choice worth considering.  I think there was discussion about greatly increasing the stats in each of the modes in the old thread, which was rejected, But enabling two modes together seems reasonable.

Thanks

[jd284]

The 3.75m Kerbitat is actually much better than it looks. I made a ticket about it too but eventually realized it doesn't need fixing.

It's only 24% heavier than the 2.75m version but its capabilities are scaled more than that, the habitation supports 6 crew instead of 4 and has much higher multiplier or base months.

The recyclers have a much higher recycling percentage, giving about 40% more supply extension factor (e.g. for the non-water consuming ones 2.5m has 0.81 which is a factor of 5.3x, whereas 3.75m has 0.865 which is 7.4x, that's the best factor you can get without consuming lots of water). And that sets the cap for all other recyclers, so having a 3.75m Kerbitat is worth it for that alone if you have a big enough base.

At least for the recyclers, splitting the capability into multiple bays would have to destroy that benefit or it would be OP (or would need to complicated in that the recycling percentage depends on number of bays using that recycler). As for hab, there's plenty of other ways to get that so I don't think it's a big issue.

[jd284]

Forgot to mention in the above, most other habs and recyclers from MKS require machinery, but the Kerbitats don't. That's why they're heavy on their own, but other habs get just as heavy when filled up with machinery.

[TauPhraim]

7 hours ago, jd284 said:

The obvious fix would be to also pull MaterialKits from planetary storage when inflating things. I've added a request to DStaal's ticket about this topic.

If I'm not mistaken, that would not solve 100% of the cases, because if you don't have a pilot you cannot pull from planetary storage, so the kits will only go one way.

Edit: unless you mean "pull from PL when inflating even when no pilot is there", but then it's a bit "cheating".

 

For me the obvious fix is to make the PL module toggleable with a button (this also has the benefit of making it visible in-flight).

Edited January 31, 2017 by TauPhraim

[Gilph]

Thanks, @jd284,

I guess I misunderstood something.  If it states 69 kerbal months and 6 crew affected, that is the same as 414 months with 0 crew affected?

[jd284]

12 minutes ago, TauPhraim said:

If I'm not mistaken, that would not solve 100% of the cases, because if you don't have a pilot you cannot pull from planetary storage, so the kits will only go one way.

Good point. Although you could argue that inflatables only really make sense for manned bases which are relatively likely to have a pilot as well.

2 minutes ago, Gilph said:

Thanks, @jd284,

I guess I misunderstood something.  If it states 69 kerbal months and 6 crew affected, that is the same as 414 months with 0 crew affected?

No, it means 69 months for 1 crew or 11.5 months for 6 crew. But for comparison the 2.5m version has 18.5 months for 1 crew or 4.6 months for 4 crew, significantly less than the 24% difference in mass.

[sh1pman]

20 minutes ago, jd284 said:

No, it means 69 months for 1 crew or 11.5 months for 6 crew. But for comparison the 2.5m version has 18.5 months for 1 crew or 4.6 months for 4 crew, significantly less than the 24% difference in mass.

So how does this "crew affected" parameter work? 

[voicey99]

It is the maximum number of crew the module can support at 100% efficiency, any more and the effect of the module is reduced per kerbal based on how many kerbals you are over the limit (the crew affected values stack). Not sure of the formula, though.

[sh1pman]

I didn't know there was this "habitation efficiency". Well, this complicates things.

Edited January 31, 2017 by sh1pman

[jd284]

Actually I'm not sure either how it works. I thought it just meant that if you had more kerbals, they'd only get the base hab time.

But considering it a bit more, I doubt that's how it works. The way the calculator shows it in the VAB it's just the total months divided by number of crew, regardless of supposed crew capacity of the hab. And I'm even less sure how the multiplier is factored in. There doesn't seem to be anything about efficiency in either case.

Mostly my hab design is just trial and error until the numbers are right after I launch it... and bases running low on hab just get some extra parts as needed.

[sh1pman]

1 minute ago, jd284 said:

Actually I'm not sure either how it works. I thought it just meant that if you had more kerbals, they'd only get the base hab time.

But considering it a bit more, I doubt that's how it works. The way the calculator shows it in the VAB it's just the total months divided by number of crew, regardless of supposed crew capacity of the hab. And I'm even less sure how the multiplier is factored in. There doesn't seem to be anything about efficiency in either case.

Mostly my hab design is just trial and error until the numbers are right after I launch it... and bases running low on hab just get some extra parts as needed.

Well, trial and error approach doesn't really work for remote bases. Imagine deploying a base on Vall and finding out that it has 10x less hab time than what VAB calculator told you. That's what happened in my game. 

[voicey99]

Through experimenting in the VAB, I think the formula for additional habtime is simply [kerbalmonths specified÷crew] and for bases with commons it is [total kerbalmonths*multiplier÷{if common's crewcap is exceeded}(crew÷common's crewcap)]. By default all crew slots contribute 1 kerbalmonth (1 KM=30 days) each with a multiplier of 0.25; the multiplier rises to 1 when any habtime module is installed and for bases with commons see the 2nd equation.

Considering your inconsistency, I'm guessing you used the ranger habs, the common function of which is currently broken.

Edited January 31, 2017 by voicey99